Editorial: Troops will raise tensions

Tuesday, May 16, 2006 | 7:46 a.m.

Federalizing National Guard troops and ordering them to assist the U.S. Border Patrol is within the authority of the president. The question is whether President Bush's support of such a move along the border of the United States and Mexico is sound.

The White House maintains that any National Guard presence along the border will be only temporary and that the troops will only engage in supporting roles such as construction, surveillance and transportation.

U.S. troop deployment in the past, however, suggests otherwise.

Troops were first sent to Vietnam, for example, as "advisers" and grew to a combat force of 500,000. The seemingly interminable bloodshed brought protests, and the National Guard was often dispatched to help local police maintain order. But its presence served largely to fuel the violence. Thirty-six years ago this month four Kent State University students were killed when National Guard troops opened fire during campus unrest.

Many National Guard troops today are weary veterans of the war in Iraq, having served several tours of duty there. Much of their equipment remains in Iraq. The Guard is stretched so thin that adding border duties would be dangerously stressful. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says Guard troops returning from Iraq should be able to go back to their jobs, and we agree.

The presence of military troops generally heightens tensions on both sides of an issue. The vast majority of people today coming across our borders illegally are bringing the clothes on their backs and whatever harmless necessities they can carry, such as water. How long will National Guard troops - trained for combat, not law enforcement - be on the border before necessities include guns?

For decades the U.S.-Mexico border has been porous but never has a president sent troops. The only difference now is that Bush's presidency is imperiled because his conservative base is shrinking and shrieking. Sending troops might quiet them down, get him a few more points in his approval rating and offer hope of salvaging a few midterm election races. These are not good reasons for committing troops.

Far better would be a major commitment to bolstering the 12,000-strong Border Patrol, which last year, without major incident, prevented more than a million people from crossing illegally into this country from Mexico. A guest-worker program that could lead to citizenship, and a larger contingent of Border Patrol officers, are strategies far superior to complicating the issue with troops.